Art vs Artist

[Kraken]

Generally speaking, the art (or product) stands on its own merits, independent of the artist or producer.

I was a big fan of both David Bowie and Queen when I was a teenager. When rumors came out that David and Freddie were both gay, me and my friends were all conflicted. We had zero tolerance for homosexuality. But I loved their music and kept buying their albums, regardless of what my friends thought. I didn't care if the rumors were true, the music spoke for itself.

If a company is run by multiple terrible people, do we punish the company by boycotting their products?

It depends on what the company is using its money for. Goya makes fine beans, but after seeing them lined up on the Resolute desk, I won't buy them. There are other beans. The owner of Boston Beer Co. is a trump contributor, so I won't buy Sam Adams products. There are other beers. Local car magnate Ernie Boch Junior is another vocal trumper; I won't ever set foot in one of his dealerships. There are other car dealers. The My Pillow guy is just a caricature and his product is a joke. The Hobby Lobby is out and The Salvation Army will never get a quarter from me (I outgrew my homophobia). All of these organizations use their profits for causes I vigorously oppose so I won't give them my money.

If a company's leaders are shitheels but that company is just using its money to thrive and enrich its shareholders, as companies do, then I don't care about that. They only pique my ire when they use their profits for evil.

[Blackhawk]

Stay away from practically anything from the first half of Hollywood's history.

I think the debate only matters when it's about financially rewarding bad people.

Once they're dead, buying or even praising their work doesn't support them in any way.

The topic is broader than that. We're also discussing Cosby albums that people have owned for years, so obviously the debate still has some relevance. In fact, the issues with historical figures like Jefferson and Lincoln (centuries gone) aren't quite on target, but they're certainly adjacent.

[YellowKing]

This is a really complicated subject, and I think ultimately it's a personal call. Everyone has their own level of comfort they have with supporting an artist that they know has engaged in reprehensible behavior, and there are varying levels of abstraction that we can all use to justify where that level sits.

I'm going to stray away from the artists to a corporate analogy to make my point.

Chick-Fil-A. I find their funding of anti-homosexual groups abhorrent. I also eat there at least once a week.

I can give you a dozen reasons why I choose to eat there, and none of them are because I support anti-homosexual groups. My kids like it and I have to feed my family. It's about 2 minutes from my house. I like their Cobb salad. My money supports kids starting out in their first jobs. Chick-Fil-A also gives large donations to worthy charities.

I have nothing against anyone who chooses not to support Chick-Fil-A. You have every right to not spend money at a business you don't like. I do have a problem, however, if you judge me for spending money at a business. I have my reasons, you have yours, and my reasons don't equate to "I hate gay people."

We run into these moral quandaries all the time, and it's almost impossible to avoid stepping into them. The same people railing against those who eat at Chick-Fil-A are probably doing so from an iPhone made in a Chinese sweatshop. None of us have the moral high ground.

So getting back to the artists, I hesitate to judge anyone for buying a Bill Cosby record, because there are probably 99 reasons they did so and being "pro-date rape" ain't one. Personally, my support of artists that have done reprehensible things is literally all over the map. I can't bring myself to watch another Louis CK special, even though he used to be one of my favorite comedians. On the other hand, I'll continue to buy and play Blizzard games. In terms of scope, what Blizzard has done is arguably worse than what Louis CK did, yet in my mind I make these judgment calls and move forward. I don't claim that they are correct or even fair. Ultimately I think you have to accept that we're not perfect, and while we absolutely need to call out bad behavior and do what we can not to reward it, it's never going to be 100%.

[Jaymann]

My favorite comedian is still Louis C. K. But I never found Cosby funny anyway.

[noxiousdog]

By continuing to support blizzard before they make changes, you are rewarding them.

Notice that the first reasonable response from management came after a 7% drop in the stock price.

It wasn't the people, it was the revenue.

[gbasden]

Shareholders have made for the exits, dropping $6B in ATVI market cap. This is how change happens. Not petitions and platitudes. The board is in crisis mode and execs are sweating. It takes lost revenue to make that happen.

Everything I've seen in 30 years of working in corporate America makes me agree. Senior management often sees sexual harassment crises as a PR exercise to get through before they go right back to the toxic culture they've enjoyed. Financial pressure is a lot harder for them to ignore and has been used in the past to create real change. Boycotts can and have worked to force change. If you do nothing and keep supporting the company, you get what happened in Blizzard for the last 10 years - words and set dressing that sound good but according to the people being harassed, no real change. I think the same is true of most mediums.

[Jeff V]

I have a limited amount of time to consume any media. Anyone who wants to exclude themselves from my consumption can go right ahead, I have no desire to support shitbags and anyone who hitched their wagon to such made a bad decision that needs not be rewarded.

I'm willing to reconsider when I run out of things to watch featuring anyone who hasn't pissed me off. I expect I'll be quite dead before then.

[noxiousdog]

I'm watching the Peacock mini-series on Dr. Death.

TL/DR version: a sociopath neurosurgeon maimed (likely intentionally) 33 of 38 patients, yet was never reported to a medical board until two doctors took it upon themselves. He's now serving life in prison.

If even hospitals are willing to cover up gross malpractice for money, only money is going to have an effect on corporations.

[gameoverman]

I'm watching the Peacock mini-series on Dr. Death.

TL/DR version: a sociopath neurosurgeon maimed (likely intentionally) 33 of 38 patients, yet was never reported to a medical board until two doctors took it upon themselves. He's now serving life in prison.

If even hospitals are willing to cover up gross malpractice for money, only money is going to have an effect on corporations.

A friend of mine back in the '90s worked as a tech at a hospital and he told me once of a mistake a doctor made. I asked him if anyone(techs/nurses/etc) were going to report it and he said no. He told me that if someone reported it then they'd be ostracized and when they made a mistake, which everyone does sooner or later, they'd have no one watching their back. Essentially they'd have to look for another job and their reputation for informing would follow them. So no one says anything. It takes someone outside the loop or someone who is immune to retaliation, or doesn't care about it, to say something. I don't know if his story was true or not but I had no reason to doubt it. It didn't exactly make him look good since he said he went along with the silence.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm watching the Peacock mini-series on Dr. Death.

TL/DR version: a sociopath neurosurgeon maimed (likely intentionally) 33 of 38 patients, yet was never reported to a medical board until two doctors took it upon themselves. He's now serving life in prison.

If even hospitals are willing to cover up gross malpractice for money, only money is going to have an effect on corporations.

A friend of mine back in the '90s worked as a tech at a hospital and he told me once of a mistake a doctor made. I asked him if anyone(techs/nurses/etc) were going to report it and he said no. He told me that if someone reported it then they'd be ostracized and when they made a mistake, which everyone does sooner or later, they'd have no one watching their back. Essentially they'd have to look for another job and their reputation for informing would follow them. So no one says anything. It takes someone outside the loop or someone who is immune to retaliation, or doesn't care about it, to say something. I don't know if his story was true or not but I had no reason to doubt it. It didn't exactly make him look good since he said he went along with the silence.

That was certainly the case and it probably persists in some places but the current thinking is that reporting errors protects the system more than ignoring them. It leads to process improvement which reduces future errors and ultimately improves patient outcomes.


A mistake can be an expensive lesson but it's better than an expensive time bomb.

[YellowKing]

I work at a hospital (albeit non-clinical), and failing to report a mistake will get you fired way quicker than reporting one. Looking back I can't think of a time where someone I know was fired for making a genuine mistake, but I could rattle off a dozen that got fired for trying to cover one up.

[hitbyambulance]

Nick Cave answered this question, as posed to him a couple months ago: https://www.theredhandfiles.com/should- ... m-the-art/

[Jeff V]

It depends. As a liberal, I have no issue whatsoever on lifestyle choices. I do have a big problem with those who would limit those choices, so if an artist was a nazi, I'm pretty sure I'd want nothing to do with his work. At least for current artists. I do have to admit to being a fan of Richard Wagner's work, although his views were reprehensible. That he lived a long time ago when such views were in vogue dampens my outrage some, it wasn't really until Mark Twain came along that the arts started evolving towards being modernly acceptable.